Additional Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department (Land Acquisition Officer vs R. M. Chinnaraj

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
The Additional Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department (Land Acquisition Officer - Appellants
Vs.
R.M. Chinnaraj - Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 586 of 2017, C.M.P. No. 2981 of 2017 and Contempt Petition No. 1407 of 2015 in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 2400 of 2014
Decided On : 04-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sricharan Rangarajan, Spl. Government Pleader and M.S. Krishnan, SC assisted by Krishnaprasad for Sarvabhauman Associates
For the Respondents: M.S. Krishnan, SC assisted by Krishnaprasad for Sarvabhauman Associates and Sricharan Rangarajan, Spl. Government Pleader

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code ,1908 - Section 2(9) - Order XXIV - Rule 1 - amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 - Section 4 - Compensation Amount due to claim - Owner or interested person or deposited - Collector passed an award for a sum and in a reference Subordinate Court awarded enhanced compensation and also fixed a sum as an additional market value from of notification of award - Besides a sum has been awarded towards solatium - Accordingly total enhanced compensation amount was Deducting the original award balance enhanced compensation to be paid to the decree holder was a sum have not been disputed by both sides - Court also awarded interest at the rate per annum from the date of possession and also awarded interest at the rate amount is deposited 06.09.2004. Accordingly, the amount to be deposited including interest –Held, Compensation awarded for the purpose of Section 28 of the Act in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) was modified. To that extent one strand of reasoning in Nath Kapur (supra) also stands discredited. But as we see it, on the question of appropriation decision in Sunder (supra) does not have such an impact as to compel us to jettison the reasoning adopted - Slightly deviating from reasoning court have indicated earlier that even going by Order Rule of Code position would be as envisaged - That apart Court are inclined to respectfully agree with the reasoning that on the wording we are satisfied that the essential ratio in (supra) on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardees decree holder would be entitled to appropriate same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless of course deposit indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention Court thus approve the ratio on aspect of appropriation Court which is even below the interest calculated by the Subordinate Judge - Further amount deposited and as stated in the calculation memo not towards specified heads as indicated in the Constitution Bench judgment and also case - As long as amount is not deposited towards specified heads now the judgment debtor cannot contend that it has to be adjusted only towards principal first instance when amount was deposited is even below the interest rate - Even there is a short fall in interest - Similarly in deposits made by judgment debtor there short fall - Further there is no indication towards the specified head under which amount is deposited – Therefore Court of view that calculation memo filed by respondent is correct judgment debtor is entitled to appropriate the deposited amount first towards interest and cost and balance towards principal as in Constitution Bench – Order accordingly

ORDER :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the Order of the executing Court Ordering attachment on the basis of the calculation memo filed by the decree holder, present revision has been filed.

2. The admitted facts are as follows:

Originally the land was acquired and the Collector passed an award for a sum of Rs. 1,17,026/- and in a reference, the Subordinate Court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 12,67,465.30 and also fixed a sum of Rs. 2,00,016.43 as an additional market value at the rate of 12% from the date of notification under section 4(1) i.e. 17.06.1966 to the date of award. Besides a sum of Rs. 3,80,239.59 has been awarded towards solatium. Accordingly, the total enhanced compensation amount was Rs. 18,47,721.36. Deducting the original award amount of Rs. 1,17,026/- the balance enhanced compensation to be paid to the decree holder was a sum of Rs. 17,30,695/-. These facts have not been disputed by both sides.

3. The Court also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession i.e., one year from 06.11.1997 to 05.11.1998 and also awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 07.11.1998 till the amount is deposited, i.e., from 06.11.1998 to 06.09.2004. Accordingly, the amount to be deposited including interest as on 06.09.2004 is about 34,02,211.55. Thereafter, it appears that on 07.09.2004, a sum of Rs. 7,11,133/- was deposited by the judgment debtor. These facts are also not in dispute. Similarly a sum of Rs. 26,91,699/- has been deposited on 27.01.2010 and a sum of Rs. 8,20,120/- was deposited on 20.01.2014./

4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the amount deposited was not to be appropriated towards the interest. Whereas, it is the contention of the judgment debtor that as per judgment in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India of the Constitution Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court reported in 2006 (8) Supreme Court Cases 457, payments made by them has been credited and appropriation has to be made as per the dictum of the Constitution Bench. The main issue involved in this revision is the mode of appropriation and hence, this Court requested both sides to file their calculation memo.

5. The revision petitioner has filed calculation. It is relevant to extract the same as follows:

CALCULATION MEMO

4(1) Notification	17.06.1996
Date of Award	09.10.1997
Date of possession	06.11.1997
Area Acquired	1,32,858 Sq.feet
I. Award amount	=Rs.1,17,026/-
II. Enhanced Compensation ordered by Hon'ble Sub-Court
1. Land Value (Acquired Land x amount fixed) (9.54 per sq.ft x 1,32,858)	= Rs.12,67,465.30/-
2. Additional market value @ 12% PA from 4(1) Notification to date of award (ie.17.06.1966 to 09.10.1997 for 480 days) 1267465 x 12 x 28 365	= Rs.2,00.016.43/-
3.Solatium @ 30 PA on the land value 1267465 x 30 100	= Rs.3,80,239.59/-
3 (i) Total enhanced compensation amount	= Rs.18,47,721.36/-
3 (ii) Amount already deposited	= Rs.1,17,026.00/-
Balance enhanced compensation to be paid (ie. 3(i) – 3(ii) )	= Rs.17,30,695.00/-

III. Interest Awarded

S. No.	Description	Amount
1.	Balance enhanced compensation to be paid	Rs.17,30,695.00
2.	Interest at 9% per annum from the date of possession to 1 year (ie.06.11.1997 to 05.11.1998) 1730695 x 9 x 365 100	Rs.1,55,762.55
3.	Interest at 15% per annum for the remaining period till the amount is deposited in court (period from 6.11.1998 to 06.09.2004) 1730695 x 15 x 1516 = Rs.10,78,824 /365 1730695 x 15 x 616 = Rs.4,34,929.55 366 Total interest Due = 155762 + 1515754	Rs.15,15,754.00 Rs.16,71,516
4.	Amount to paid as on 06.09.2004 (i.e. 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2873

Cases Referred (2)